I am attaching a link to a post on Lew White's site called "Polygamy".
(For those that do not know him, he is the author of a book called Fossilized Customs on the pagan roots of many so-called "Christian" traditions. I found his book quite interesting, and valuable as well. If there is any criticism of that work, it might be that he has been characterized as "going overboard" on some elements of paganism, and 'finding it under every rock.' Unfortunately, he missed the pagan roots of Monogamy-Worship!)
http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com/polygamy.html
I am still looking for an email address for him on his site, since I hope to get the following email to him, which I'll post as an "open letter":
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear brother Lew,
I must admit that I was disappointed and more than a little surprised by your comments on "polygamy" in the article on your website.
For one who normally exercises discernment in recognizing pagan influences on religion, customs, and the "traditions of men", you failed on this one. The claim that the "ideal" of Scripture is "one man and one woman" ONLY is NOT supported by Scripture!
It IS, however, a central tenet of Greco-Roman paganism and goddess worship, along with the related feminist idols of "egalitariansim", "equality of the sexes", and matriarchy. It is a denial of the central relationship of our Kinsman-Redeemer (singular, echad) to His PEOPLE (plural), of our King to His subjects (plural), of a master to his servants (plural), and of a Husband to his wives (plural).
It is not my intention in a single email to provide an exegesis of God's Word on marriage (for which the Hebrew HAS no word that means EITHER "polygyny" OR "monogamy"). His Word contains FAR more on the topic than a single article can do justice, but it is CONSISTENT, and can ONLY be properly understood in the context of Covenant (which IS between one man and one woman before Him). But a man may enter into MORE THAN ONE COVENANT, just as our Elohim did!
A brief summary should suffice, at least for an introduction. God does not prohibit something, and then give GUIDELINES for the practice! (compare homosexuality, and Ex. 21:10, and MANY others.) God does not give gifts that are sinful (II Sam. 12:8), nor call the polygynist recipient a "man after God's own heart".
Nor does God ever call Himself a sinner (compare Eze. 23 and Jer. 3, where He has TWO wives, variously Israel and Judah). He also tells the parable of the ten virgins (no, NOT "bridesmaids", in spite of Neo-PC translations and Romanism). He wrote letters to SEVEN churches (not "One Universal Church") and speaks (Isaiah 4:1) of "seven women" who will take hold of one man saying, "...take away my reproach". Isaiah 4:2 makes clear that this time of completion, and polygyny, in the coming Messianic era is a time of blessing.
There is NO basis for the Roman-inspired claim that 'the bride' MUST be singular, when in fact His teaching repeatedly and explicitly says otherwise (although a polygynous house in proper Covenant relationship to a single head which serves Him can become "echad" in Him, as promised).
The presumedly-monogamous Adam and Eve (since Scripture is technically silent on many specifics of that family, and ANY other females) proves only that their union was sufficient for God's purposes ("one flesh" being key to the creation of a baby). The corollary "lesson" of the First Monogamist is that this "ideal" marriage was also the one "by which sin entered the world" - hardly an ideal recommendation. (The point here, of course, is not exegesis, but rather to "let us reason together". The "ideal" notion of Monogamy as a tradition of Greco-Roman man owes far more to pagan goddess worship than to Scripture. It might even, with more than a little justification, be called "forbidding to marry": a "doctrine of devils" which has replaced God's commandments.)
Even the "new" covenant teaching of Paul in I Cor. 7 makes a clear case for when "modern" polygyny can be REQUIRED (if we obey Him, rather than men, and avoid licensure before Caesar):
A woman is "not to depart" from her husband. And the believing husband is simply NOT to put her away (nor, by inclusion, to "divorce" her). She must remain celibate, or be reconciled to him, since to do otherwise is by definition adultery. But He is "not under bondage", and may well remarry (clearly a superior option to fornication or other sin, for those who "burn").
If she repents, and returns to her husband, SHE REMAINS HIS WIFE. A Godly husband WILL take her back, following genuine repentance, for reconciliation! (It is not His desire that "any should perish", and everything about His Word is directed toward reconciliation and redemption.) This is the "reproach" that so abounds in fallen Amerika, and which is being remedied by those who seek His face, and read His Word, in SPITE of our Romanized, monogamy-worshipping culture of idolatry, and the resultant "serial polygamy".
Read Tom Shipley's excellent work, Man and Woman in Biblical Law, for more information on how the pernicious false doctrine of monogamy (idolatry) denies the central Truth of the Gospel, or J. Wesley Stiver's Eros Made Sacred, for more information on the pagan nature of the idolatry of monogamy itself. You bought into the lie, my brother!
(And, by the way, your comments about slavery were interesting, if ironic in the extreme. We DO live in a land of slavery, , and certainly not by Caesar! You are his slaves who you submit yourself to obey, and most people today have "made a treaty with the inhabitants of the land" that they were told NOT to, and as a result, they BELONG to Caesar! So do their wives, and children! Read Exodus 21 carefully, and remember that our Savior commanded that we "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is His". The question then becomes - Whom do YOU serve? And to Whom do we, our wives, and our children belong? The prince of this world certainly has a claim for those who do not discern the difference!)
Please find and read those works, Lew, and be like the Bereans on this topic. You have ripped away the pagan veil on so many other subjects - do not be fooled here. Study for yourself, to confirm that it is true.
Blessings in Him,
Mark
(For those that do not know him, he is the author of a book called Fossilized Customs on the pagan roots of many so-called "Christian" traditions. I found his book quite interesting, and valuable as well. If there is any criticism of that work, it might be that he has been characterized as "going overboard" on some elements of paganism, and 'finding it under every rock.' Unfortunately, he missed the pagan roots of Monogamy-Worship!)
http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com/polygamy.html
I am still looking for an email address for him on his site, since I hope to get the following email to him, which I'll post as an "open letter":
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear brother Lew,
I must admit that I was disappointed and more than a little surprised by your comments on "polygamy" in the article on your website.
For one who normally exercises discernment in recognizing pagan influences on religion, customs, and the "traditions of men", you failed on this one. The claim that the "ideal" of Scripture is "one man and one woman" ONLY is NOT supported by Scripture!
It IS, however, a central tenet of Greco-Roman paganism and goddess worship, along with the related feminist idols of "egalitariansim", "equality of the sexes", and matriarchy. It is a denial of the central relationship of our Kinsman-Redeemer (singular, echad) to His PEOPLE (plural), of our King to His subjects (plural), of a master to his servants (plural), and of a Husband to his wives (plural).
It is not my intention in a single email to provide an exegesis of God's Word on marriage (for which the Hebrew HAS no word that means EITHER "polygyny" OR "monogamy"). His Word contains FAR more on the topic than a single article can do justice, but it is CONSISTENT, and can ONLY be properly understood in the context of Covenant (which IS between one man and one woman before Him). But a man may enter into MORE THAN ONE COVENANT, just as our Elohim did!
A brief summary should suffice, at least for an introduction. God does not prohibit something, and then give GUIDELINES for the practice! (compare homosexuality, and Ex. 21:10, and MANY others.) God does not give gifts that are sinful (II Sam. 12:8), nor call the polygynist recipient a "man after God's own heart".
Nor does God ever call Himself a sinner (compare Eze. 23 and Jer. 3, where He has TWO wives, variously Israel and Judah). He also tells the parable of the ten virgins (no, NOT "bridesmaids", in spite of Neo-PC translations and Romanism). He wrote letters to SEVEN churches (not "One Universal Church") and speaks (Isaiah 4:1) of "seven women" who will take hold of one man saying, "...take away my reproach". Isaiah 4:2 makes clear that this time of completion, and polygyny, in the coming Messianic era is a time of blessing.
There is NO basis for the Roman-inspired claim that 'the bride' MUST be singular, when in fact His teaching repeatedly and explicitly says otherwise (although a polygynous house in proper Covenant relationship to a single head which serves Him can become "echad" in Him, as promised).
The presumedly-monogamous Adam and Eve (since Scripture is technically silent on many specifics of that family, and ANY other females) proves only that their union was sufficient for God's purposes ("one flesh" being key to the creation of a baby). The corollary "lesson" of the First Monogamist is that this "ideal" marriage was also the one "by which sin entered the world" - hardly an ideal recommendation. (The point here, of course, is not exegesis, but rather to "let us reason together". The "ideal" notion of Monogamy as a tradition of Greco-Roman man owes far more to pagan goddess worship than to Scripture. It might even, with more than a little justification, be called "forbidding to marry": a "doctrine of devils" which has replaced God's commandments.)
Even the "new" covenant teaching of Paul in I Cor. 7 makes a clear case for when "modern" polygyny can be REQUIRED (if we obey Him, rather than men, and avoid licensure before Caesar):
A woman is "not to depart" from her husband. And the believing husband is simply NOT to put her away (nor, by inclusion, to "divorce" her). She must remain celibate, or be reconciled to him, since to do otherwise is by definition adultery. But He is "not under bondage", and may well remarry (clearly a superior option to fornication or other sin, for those who "burn").
If she repents, and returns to her husband, SHE REMAINS HIS WIFE. A Godly husband WILL take her back, following genuine repentance, for reconciliation! (It is not His desire that "any should perish", and everything about His Word is directed toward reconciliation and redemption.) This is the "reproach" that so abounds in fallen Amerika, and which is being remedied by those who seek His face, and read His Word, in SPITE of our Romanized, monogamy-worshipping culture of idolatry, and the resultant "serial polygamy".
Read Tom Shipley's excellent work, Man and Woman in Biblical Law, for more information on how the pernicious false doctrine of monogamy (idolatry) denies the central Truth of the Gospel, or J. Wesley Stiver's Eros Made Sacred, for more information on the pagan nature of the idolatry of monogamy itself. You bought into the lie, my brother!
(And, by the way, your comments about slavery were interesting, if ironic in the extreme. We DO live in a land of slavery, , and certainly not by Caesar! You are his slaves who you submit yourself to obey, and most people today have "made a treaty with the inhabitants of the land" that they were told NOT to, and as a result, they BELONG to Caesar! So do their wives, and children! Read Exodus 21 carefully, and remember that our Savior commanded that we "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is His". The question then becomes - Whom do YOU serve? And to Whom do we, our wives, and our children belong? The prince of this world certainly has a claim for those who do not discern the difference!)
Please find and read those works, Lew, and be like the Bereans on this topic. You have ripped away the pagan veil on so many other subjects - do not be fooled here. Study for yourself, to confirm that it is true.
Blessings in Him,
Mark
